Conservation and the 2007 Farm Bill

June 25, 2007 –
May 6, 2008
RL34060

This report introduces some of the issues that are influencing the development of a conservation title. It then reviews major provisions passed by both chambers, followed by some of the alternative conservation proposals that were offered. An appendix compares current law with the conservation provisions, as passed by both chambers, in more detail.

Order Code RL34060
Conservation and the 2007 Farm Bill
Updated May 6, 2008
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Renée Johnson
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Conservation and the 2007 Farm Bill
Summary
Conservation is playing a prominent role in the development of a farm bill by
the 110th Congress. Major conservation topics include determining the priorities for
the conservation effort; deciding whether any existing programs or activities should
be modified or eliminated; deciding whether new programs or activities should be
added to the effort; and determining funding levels for the overall conservation effort
and for each program.
The House completed action on its version of the farm bill (H.R. 2419) on July
27, 2007, passing it by a vote of 231 to 191. Many options for conservation had been
offered as the legislation moved through the House, but the conservation title was
passed as reported by the committee and modified by a chairman’s mark. In
summary, this legislation would increase funding for many conservation programs
and add a number of small new programs to the conservation portfolio, and halt new
enrollment into the Conservation Security Program.
The Senate Agriculture Committee reported its version of the farm bill (S. 2302)
on October 25, 2007 (S.Rept. 110-220). Beyond the adoption of a chairman’s mark,
the conservation title was altered little in committee. During floor action, the Senate
adopted an amended version of the committee bill combined with a revenue bill (S.
2242) as a substitute (S.Amdt. 3500 to H.R. 2419). The Senate passed its version of
the farm bill on December 14 (H.R. 2419, amended) by a vote of 79 to 14 after
adopting a wide-ranging manager’s amendment (S.Amdt. 3855). In summary, this
legislation would create a new program that combines the Conservation Security and
Environmental Quality Incentives Programs, provide level funding for most existing
conservation programs, and create new sub-programs within existing programs.
Congressional agriculture leaders and the Administration are currently
negotiating the size of an overall funding increase for agriculture under the new farm
bill. The House, working with the Administration, is proposing an increase of about
$6 billion above a CBO estimate of approximately $597 billion over 10 years, while
the Senate is proposing an increase of $12.3 billion. After an overall number is
agreed to, the funds must then be allocated among all areas of agriculture, and the
portion provided for conservation must be allocated among the many programs.
Congress is under great pressure to complete the farm bill because producers wants
to know the policy changes as they make planting decisions, and because the farm
bill expires on March 15 and would revert to law enacted in 1949 if not extended.
For conservation, inaction would terminate almost all programs.
This report introduces some of the issues that are influencing the development
of a conservation title. It then reviews major provisions passed by both chambers,
followed by some of the alternative conservation proposals that were offered. An
appendix compares current law with the conservation provisions, as passed by both
chambers, in more detail. This report is limited to the conservation title. However,
conservation topics are also addressed elsewhere in the farm bill, including the
energy, forestry, and research titles; those provisions may be discussed in CRS
reports about those titles.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Issues Shaping the Conservation Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Conservation Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Energy and Agriculture Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Green Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Payment Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Program Simplification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Program Delivery Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
New Conservation Farm Bill Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Market-Based Approaches for Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Conservation at Larger Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Partnership Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Measuring Conservation Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Congressional Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
House Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Senate Farm Bill (H.R. 2419, amended) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Conference Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Other Conservation Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
The Administration’s Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Other Selected Legislative Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Comparison of the Conservation Titles in the House and Senate
Farm Bills (H.R. 2419) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Conservation Security Program (CSP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Conservation Program Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Other Conservation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
New Conservation Programs Authorized in One or Both Bills . . . . . . . . . . 36
Conservation and the 2007 Farm Bill
Most Recent Developments1
The House and Senate completed action on their respective versions of a new
farm bill in 2007 (H.R. 2419). However, conference action was initially delayed in
part because of differences between committee leadership and the Administration
over the inclusion of tax provisions in the bill, and the Administration’s demand for
additional reform of commodity programs. Consequently, Congress temporarily
extended portions of the expiring 2002 farm bill until March 15, 2008, as part of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). Since March,
Congress has approved a one-month extension, followed by three consecutive shortterm extensions lasting through May 16.2 Both the House and Senate have named
conferees. Conferees began official meetings in April 2008, and have been working
to resolve approaches to finance new spending above baseline using tax provisions
not usually associated with farm bills.
The House and Senate versions of the pending omnibus farm bill differ in
numerous ways that will have to be resolved by the conference committee. In
conservation, the most significant difference is that the House version allows no new
signups in the Conservation Security Program (CSP) until FY2012, while the Senate
version replaces the CSP with a new Conservation Stewardship Program that
combines features of the existing CSP and Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, requiring that more than 13 million acres be enrolled annually. The Senate
bill provides level funding for most existing conservation programs while increasing
overall conservation funding by almost $4.8 billion between FY2008 and FY2012,
and creates several new programs (mostly within existing programs). The House bill
increases overall funding for conservation by more than $4.5 billion between FY2008
and FY2012 and add several small new programs to the conservation portfolio, while
eliminating very little of the current effort beyond delaying further enrollment in the
CSP until FY2012.
Congress completed action on FY2008 funding for agriculture when it passed
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764). The President signed this
bill on December 26, 2007. It makes several adjustments to funding for conservation
programs (for example, limiting funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program to $1.0 billion and providing $30 million for Watershed Operations),
extends funding through March 15, 2008, for three farm bill programs that expired
at the end of FY2007, and includes a 0.7% across-the-board rescission.
1
This report is an updated and revised version of a report originally written by former CRS
specialist Jeffrey A. Zinn.
2
March 12 (P.L. 110-196), April 17 (P.L. 110-200), April 24 (P.L. 110-205), and May 1
(P.L. 110-208).
CRS-2
Introduction
The 110th Congress is developing an omnibus farm bill to replace the current
2002 farm bill, which generally expired at the end of FY2007. Conservation is
playing a prominent role in this effort. The House completed action on its version
of the farm bill, passing it by a vote of 231 to 191 on July 27, 2007.3 Numerous
options for conservation provisions had been put forth as the legislation moved
through the House; perhaps the most prominent were found in H.R. 1551, introduced
by Representative Kind on March 15, 2007, and H.R. 1600, introduced by
Representative Cardoza on March 20, 2007. Each of these bills had more than 100
cosponsors. However, the House enacted the conservation title as reported by the
Agriculture Committee and modified by a chairman’s mark without further
amendment. In summary, this legislation would increase funding for many
conservation programs and add a number of small new programs to the conservation
portfolio, halt new enrollment into the Conservation Security Program, and eliminate
little else from the current effort.
The Senate Agriculture Committee completed action on its version of the farm
bill (S. 2302) on October 25, 2007, and reported it for full Senate consideration
(S.Rept. 110-220). Beyond the adoption of a chairman’s mark, the conservation title
was altered little in committee. Senate floor action began in early November. The
Senate adopted an amended version of the committee bill combined with a revenue
bill (S. 2242) as a substitute (S.Amdt. 3500 to H.R. 2419). The Senate passed its
version of the farm bill on December 14 (H.R. 2419, amended) by a vote of 79 to 14
after adopting a wide-ranging manager’s amendment (S.Amdt 3855). In summary,
this legislation would create a new program that combines the Conservation Security
and Environmental Quality Incentives Programs, provide level funding for most
existing conservation programs, and create several new sub-programs within existing
programs.
Agriculture committees in both chambers have drawn on information gathered
at numerous hearings, recommendations and proposals offered by many interested
parties (including the Bush Administration), and legislative proposals introduced by
other Members. Recommendations range from general principles to very specific
changes and legislative language, and from changes limited to a specific farm bill
program or title to those involving multiple farm bill titles. Conservation has been
among the most actively addressed farm bill issue areas, attracting recommendations
from many interests who represent widely varying perspectives.4 Coalitions have
formed and articulated their priorities and positions on many of these topics. One
conservation group, the American Farmland Trust, in particular, was very active early
3
For an overview of provisions in H.R. 2419, see CRS Report RL34113, The House-Passed
2007 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) at a Glance, coordinated by Renee Johnson.
4
For a brief introduction identifying a large sampling of these proposals, see CRS Report
RL33934, Farm Bill Proposals and Legislative Action in the 110th Congress, by coordinated
Renee Johnson.
CRS-3
on in soliciting input from a large and diverse set of interests and developing a wideranging set of general proposals, which it released early in the summer of 2006.5
This report covers the issues shaping the debate and tracks the conservation title
of the new farm bill from committee action to enactment. It is limited to the contents
of the conservation title, which is summarized in the text and presented in greater
detail in an appendix. This title is not as wide-ranging as the topic of conservation,
which encompasses policies and programs that protect or restore natural resources
and the environment in conjunction with the production of food or fiber. Aspects of
conservation have been increasingly addressed in other titles in recent farm bills, as
elements of the conservation effort are being integrated with multiple aspects of
agricultural policy. This trend continues with the versions of the farm bill passed by
both chambers, where conservation provisions also are in the energy, forestry, and
research titles, among others.6
Issues Shaping the Conservation Debate
Many issues could influence congressional decisions about conservation. Some
of these issues, such as funding and program complexity, are broad and central to
congressional considerations and to farm bill participants. Other issues, however, are
of great concern to only a portion of farm bill participants. Even if all participants
could agree on a particular issue, such as funding, how it might be addressed — that
is, how large total funding for conservation should be and how those funds should
be allocated among conservation programs — still generates considerable additional
debate. This section broadly identifies and introduces the issues, but does not
provide detailed analysis about them, either individually or in relation to each other.
The introduction of each issue concludes with a series of policy questions. The
House- and Senate-passed bills address many of these issues in different ways that
will have to be resolved by the conference committee.
Conservation Funding. The tight federal budget makes funding for farm
bill programs a contentious topic. Agriculture leaders in both chambers and the
Administration are currently negotiating exactly how much additional funding over
the current baseline will be made available for agriculture; after leaders agree on that
number, they will start the process of making funding decisions about specific
programs. The smaller the increase, the more contentious the allocation discussions
will be. Agricultural interests sought increased funding by fully funding a $20 billion
five-year deficit-neutral reserve fund approved in the FY2008 budget resolution, or
by finding offsetting savings. The current discussions revolve around competing
proposals; the House and the Administration have agree to increasing funding by
about $6 billion over the current baseline of $596.6 billion over 10 years, while the
Senate is suggesting the increase should be $12.3 billion.
5
Information on these proposals can be accessed through the American Farmland Trust
website at [http://www.farmland.org].
6
For more background information about the evolution of conservation programs, more
detailed data about some of the larger conservation programs, and funding in recent years,
see CRS Report RL33556, Soil and Water Conservation: An Overview, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS-4
After the issue of total funding for agriculture is resolved, the agriculture
committees would then decide what portion of the agriculture funds would go to
conservation programs, and then, how the funding for conservation would be
allocated among the many programs.7 After the program funding levels are
determined, numerous related questions might be addressed, such as (1) whether
certain locations (states, regions, or watersheds), types of producers, or resource
concerns should receive higher priority for access to any programs, and (2) what
levels of funding will mean for the current backlogs of interest in program
participation that cannot be met.
Energy and Agriculture Conservation. Energy is a major topic for this
farm bill, both because of the tremendous potential contribution of biofuel production
to the farm economy, and because of the high costs of petroleum and petroleumbased products. At the center of this issue is finding ways to craft energy policies
that encourage or allow for expanded crop cultivation for biofuels in ways that are
compatible with land retirement and other established conservation goals. Among
the questions that have been raised are (1) should lands retired for multiple years
under federal conservation programs that would be returned to production to grow
energy crops be treated differently than other lands that seek to exit land retirement
programs; (2) should no land, only a few types of lands, or most lands in multi-year
retirement programs be allowed to exit those programs without financial penalty if
they are to be converted to energy crop production; (3) what, if any, stipulations to
protect the public benefits that have resulted from land retirement (not allowing
activity during the nesting season or limiting the harvest frequency, for example)
should be a part of options to return the land to crop production; and (4) how do
subsidies for ethanol and other bioenergy products affect production patterns on
agricultural lands and conservation on those lands? Future energy policies are now
clearer with enactment of Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110140), signed into law on December 19, 2007, and may provide useful guidance for
the farm bill conference committee.
Green Payments. Strong interest continues, especially in the conservation
and environmental communities, for a major conservation program for working
lands, generally referred to as a green payments program. A current land stewardship
program, the Conservation Security Program (CSP), is one possibility. It is viewed
by supporters as both compatible with World Trade Organization priorities (should
trade talks be successfully concluded), and as a complement to the many land
retirement conservation programs.8 Among the many policy questions this issue
raises are (1) how should a green payments program be used to integrate commodity
and conservation policies; (2) will any WTO requirements constrain the design of a
7
For additional information about authorized funding levels and actual funding, by year,
for all the mandatory conservation programs from 2003 to the present, see CRS Report
RS22243, Mandatory Funding for Agriculture Conservation Programs by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
8
For background information on alternative perspectives about the green payment
approach, see CRS Report RL32624, Green Payments in US and European Union
Agricultural Policy, Charles E. Hanrahan and Jeffrey A. Zinn, and CRS Report RL34010,
WTO Compliance Status of the Conservation Sercurity Program and the Conservation
Reserve Program, by Randy Schnepf.
CRS-5
green payments program; (3) does the CSP need to be fully funded and implemented
everywhere to be successful; (4) how might CSP be amended based on
implementation experiences since enactment; and (5) are there ways in which CSP
is not a good model of a green payments program?
Payment Limits. Limiting commodity support payments has been a major
issue for many years, and now that same issue is being raised about conservation
payments.9 Limiting conservation payments, either by not making them available to
very small farms (measured by acres or earnings) or to very large farms (measured
by earnings), or by capping them in some fashion, has been raised as an approach that
could provide additional conservation assistance available to full-time commercial
operators (or to other farm bill programs). The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA’s) Economic Research Service determined that conservation payments tend
to go to smaller and mid-sized producers, while commodity payments are more
concentrated among the larger producers. Payment limits are already a part of a few
conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (a
maximum of $450,000 during any six-year period) and the Conservation Security
Program ($45,000 a year). Among the questions that have been raised are (1) should
payment limits be program-specific, or for some combination of multiple
conservation programs; (2) how might payment limits change patterns of
participation and accomplishment for conservation programs; (3) how much money
might be saved using different payment limit options; (4) where should any savings
be allocated; and (5) if payment limits are authorized, should each conservation
program have the same limit?
Program Simplification. The number of conservation programs, each with
its own structure and participation requirements, has proliferated. USDA’s Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) alone administers about 20 programs and
subprograms. One pressure to condense and coordinate the plethora of programs
comes from potential participants, who may be discouraged from participating by the
complexities they encounter over which program they wish to join and what exactly
will be required from them. A second pressure comes from USDA, which sees a
potential to gain administrative efficiencies and realize financial savings through
program simplification. In addition, the NRCS field staff may believe that it would
be easier to market programs to potential participants if requirements are easier to
explain. Of the Bush Administration’s ten conservation proposals for this farm bill
(see “The Administration’s Proposal,” below), four would combine similar programs,
such as the easement programs or many of the cost-sharing programs. Among the
questions that have been raised are (1) which programs might be combined; (2) what
changes would be required to make these program more compatible (revising the
definitions of eligible land to make them consistent, for example); (3) will combining
programs decrease or increase the number of people or amount of land that is eligible
(and should such changes be a goal of program simplification); (4) can the program
application process be simplified; and (5) what are the potential savings in program
administration costs that could be realized if any of the simplification proposals were
adopted?
9
For additional information on commodity program payments, see CRS Report RS21493,
Payment Limits for Farm Commodity Programs: Issues and Proposals, by Jim Monke.
CRS-6
Program Delivery Capacity. Both the number of issues addressed by
conservation and the funding available to address those problems have expanded
rapidly over the past two decades. During the same time, the number of employees
at the administering agencies has been constant or has shrunk. This delivery capacity
question has generally been raised in relation to technical assistance, which provides
the planning and engineering advice needed to implement conservation programs.
The capacity to provide technical assistance has been augmented by a system of
qualified third party providers, authorized in the 2002 farm bill. Among the
questions that have been raised are (1) does the conservation delivery capacity of
USDA agencies need to be further supplemented through partnerships, relationships
with other organizations, or expansion of the technical assistance provider system;
(2) what opportunities and problems would result if a large portion of staff in the
responsible agencies retired in a short time period; (3) does USDA have the staff
needed to administer conservation programs today if they were all fully funded; and
(4) will the pending farm bill consider how workforce capacity issues might be
addressed to minimize problems in the future?
New Conservation Farm Bill Issues. As in every recent farm bill, new
conservation issues have emerged that might receive increased attention. A sampling
of the issues that might be addressed because they are new or of growing importance
include (1) expanding the number of acres in production to produce biofuels; (2)
protecting threatened and endangered species; (3) eradicating invasive species; (4)
participating in efforts to mitigate the forces behind global climate change; (5)
dealing more aggressively with water scarcity; (6) providing additional conservation
assistance to beginning and limited resource producers; (7) providing additional
assistance to producers of fruits and vegetables; and (8) addressing air quality issues.
In addition, new approaches continue to be added to the conservation tool kit, such
as pending proposals to create the groundwork that could lead to use of market-based
approaches in the future (discussed below). Among the questions that have been
raised are (1) whether new programs are needed to address new issues or can
established programs just be expanded; (2) what expertise and funding that is not
available will be needed to address these new issues; (3) should any new issues
receive a higher priority among all conservation efforts than some of the older ones;
and (4) will legislation establish reasonable expectations for dealing with these
issues?
Market-Based Approaches for Conservation. Pressure has been
growing to foster the use of market-based approaches in conservation. These
approaches, which are based on establishing financial measures for services that can
be provided and developing markets to sell or trade services, are viewed by some as
offering landowners both a new way to be paid for environmental services that
benefit society and a new way to protect and promote services that landowners have
not been compensated for in the past. This approach has long found support in
academic circles, but in recent years, support has spread more widely, especially in
the forestry and conservation communities. Much of that interest has been stimulated
by an increased desire to sequester carbon as a response to global climate change;
earlier interest was concentrated in water quality trading. Among the questions that
have been raised are (1) what opportunities are there to use more market-based
approaches — establishing ecosystem markets or selling carbon credits, for example
— in conservation; (2) what baseline work to establish values for these service and
CRS-7
markets is needed to foster their development and operation; (3) what roles can
agriculture play in addressing global climate change through the use of markets; (4)
what is the federal role in the development and operation of markets generally; and
(5) how should markets be monitored to make sure that the services that benefit to
society are being provided.10
Conservation at Larger Scales. Conservation has traditionally been
applied at the scale of either the individual farm or smaller (a field or even a portion
of a field). Since conservation problems, such as excessive soil erosion, tend to be
concentrated in portions of watersheds, interest has grown in considering larger areas,
such as watersheds or ecosystems, where problem sites can be identified and
conservation most efficiently applied. The result, advocates of this approach say,
would be programs that are more efficient in resolving conservation problems.
Research in several watersheds has shown that, commonly, about 80% of the
conservation problems originate in about 20% of a watershed. Since all participation
in conservation programs is voluntary, these programs often are not implemented
where problems are most severe or concentrated, especially when implemented on
a farm or field basis. Among the questions that have been raised are (1) can the
locations where conservation problems are most concentrated be identified; (2) how
much more efficient might conservation programs be if they could address problems
at the watershed scale; (3) would other related changes need to be made in the
conservation approach (such as not encouraging participation by those who do not
have the most severe problems on their land); (4) are there some programs for which
this approach should not be used; and (5) what role should land retirement programs
play at a watershed or ecosystem scale?
Partnership Opportunities. One premise behind the federal conservation
effort is the extensive use of partnerships involving multiple public and private
organizations. This approach has proven increasingly important as the conservation
mission has rapidly expanded over the past two decades to include new topics and
responsibilities, while the agencies dealing with that expanded mission have found
it challenging to change as quickly. The third party provider system established in
the 2002 farm bill may provide lessons about both the potential and limitations of
partnerships. Some conservation advocates believe that there are additional
opportunities to expand the use of partnerships. Among the questions that have been
raised are (1) how extensively can partnerships supplement staff capacity and
capability; (2) what are some of the factors that might limit or inhibit the use of
partnerships; (3) should the current third party system be altered in any way; (4) who
are the possible leaders of conservation partnerships; (5) what benefits do partners
bring to the conservation effort, and are there any significant offsetting costs; and (6)
what role(s) might voluntary partnerships, such as the Bush Administration’s
Cooperative Conservation Initiative, play in future conservation policy.11
Measuring Conservation Accomplishments. Critics and some
conservation advocates have raised questions about what the overall conservation
10
For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RL34042, Environmental Services
Markets: Farm Bill Proposals, by Renee Johnson.
11
More information on this Initiative can be found at [http://cooperativeconservation.gov].
CRS-8
effort actually accomplishes as the level of activity and federal spending have both
grown. The Department of Agriculture has initiated the Conservation Effects
Assessment Program (CEAP) to develop some insights that might help address this
question. In addition, the Resource Conservation Act (RCA), enacted 1978 and
expiring at the end of 2007, requires that the Department conduct a periodic
assessment of natural resource conditions and prepare a national plan to respond to
what was learned. Among the questions that have been raised are (1) should the
RCA be reauthorized, and, if so, should it be amended; (2) should Congress identify
its expectations for what should result from the CEAP effort; (3) how should
measures of accomplishments be integrated with conservation programs; (4) should
the evaluation efforts explore such questions as how efficient and effective are each
conservation program, how enduring are their benefits, and do these programs serve
equally various sectors of agriculture and various regions of the country; and (5) what
mechanisms are incorporated into each program to monitor and measure
accomplishments.
Congressional Activities
House Farm Bill (H.R. 2419). The House passed its version of the farm bill
on July 27, 2007, reauthorizing programs through FY2012. The legislative process
started when the House Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Conservation,
Credit, Energy, and Research marked up a “discussion draft” of the conservation title
on May 23, 2007. The subcommittee adopted the draft with six amendments. The
discussion draft was prepared before key decisions about funding had been made, and
as a result, it included two optons for funding levels for several programs.
Committee Chairman Peterson released a chairman’s mark, dated July 13, which
made numerous changes to the language approved by the subcommittee and served
as the basis for the full committee markup.12 The full committee marked up the farm
bill between July 17 and July 19, 2007, and reported it on July 23, 2007 (H.Rept.
110-256, pt. 1). While several amendments to the conservation title were offered,
and a portion of these were adopted, these amendments could probably be
characterized more as fine-tuning than as major changes to this title.
The full House adopted a manager’s amendment and an en bloc reserve fund
amendment, which altered many aspects of the conservation title, as reported.
However, most of the 31 amendments that were allowed to be debated on the floor
were defeated or withdrawn. Among these amendments, the House rejected three
that would have altered the conservation title, most notably the Kind Amendment,
which would have made numerous changes enhancing funding and adding a new
forestry program. It was defeated in a roll call vote, 117 to 309.
As passed by the House, Title II, Conservation, contains the following
provisions. All programs are authorized through FY2012, unless otherwise noted,
and spending for four programs amended in other sections is authorized in Section
12
A copy of the conservation (and other) titles and a short summary of major provisions can
be found at the committee’s farm bill home page, at [http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/
Legislation/110/ConservationSBS.pdf].
CRS-9
2401. House provisions are compared to current law and Senate-passed provisions
in much greater detail in the appendix.
!
!
!
!
!
Section 2101 would reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP). The CRP, a multi-year land retirement program, would be
reauthorized at the current enrollment level of 39.2 million acres. Other
provisions would make eligible multi-year rotations of grasses and
legumes; extend the wetland subprogram; address invasive species; allow
managed grazing at a reduced rental rate; allow dryland crop production
and grazing on certain lands enrolled in the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program; facilitate the transfer of land from retiring to
beginning and socially-disadvantaged producers; and allow contracts to
be terminated at any time if they are at least five years old and not enrolled
under the continuous enrollment.
Section 2102 would reauthorize the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).
The WRP protects agricultural wetlands and buffers using multi-year
agreements and easements. The WRP would be reauthorized at 3.605
million acres, with an annual enrollment goal of 250,000 acres. Other
provisions would allow up to 10,000 acres of the acres enrolled annually
to be in eligible flood plains; add provisions on eligible and ineligible
lands, compensation for easements, and considering offers; and authorize
a new enhancement program (like the CRP Program).
Section 2103 would amend the Conservation Security Program (CSP).
The CSP is a land stewardship program to apply conservation on so-called
working lands. The CSP would be changed so that all contracts would be
for five years, with one extension for an additional five years in return for
providing additional conservation benefits in addressing at least one
priority resource of concern. Provisions specify the contents of a CSP
contract; permit contract changes and allow contracts to be terminated
under limited circumstances; eliminate penalties for non-compliance
caused by factors that are beyond the producer’s control; specify how
offers are to be evaluated; coordinate participation with the organic
production program; require the identification of up to five priority
resources of concern in areas within a state; provide stewardship
enhancement payments; limit CSP payments under a contract to $150,000
over five years; limit technical assistance to 15% of CSP spending each
year; and honor preexisting contracts while prohibiting new contracts
between September 30, 2007, and October 1, 2011. (See Section 2401 for
funding provisions, which eliminate enrollment between FY2008 and
FY2012.)
Section 2104 would reauthorize the Grasslands Reserve Program
(GRP). The GRP retires and restores grasslands under long-term
agreements and easements. The GRP would be authorized to enroll an
additional at 1.34 million acres, and up to 10% of the enrollment each year
could be certain lands that had been enrolled in the CRP. It would also
authorize an enhancement program similar to the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program, specify how fair market value is to be determined,
and require the Secretary to transfer easements to states or qualified
private organizations.
Section 2105 would reauthorize the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP). EQIP, the central conservation cost-sharing program,
would be amended to add forest management and energy to the program
purposes (and other subsections); permit coordinated implementation by
multiple landowners; increase the cost-share to 90% for beginning and
CRS-10
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
socially disadvantaged producers, and for gasifier technology; allow
incentive payments to use third party providers, to develop
comprehensive nutrient management plans, or to implement certain
energy-related improvements; provide at least 5% of the funds each year
to beginning producers and at least 5% to socially disadvantaged and
limited resource producers; set priorities for evaluating applications; and
require water conservation practices to lead to a net water savings.
(Funding levels would be authorized in Section 2401.) It would also
provide funding for the Conservation Innovation Grants subprogram,
which would consist of (1) innovative grants, (2) a new comprehensive
planning program (specifies a pilot project for in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed), (3) grants to organic and specialty crop producers, and (4) a
new air quality program to help meet regulatory requirements.
Section 2106 would create a new Regional Ground and Surface Water
Enhancement Program. This program, within EQIP, would coordinate
water supply and water quality activities on agricultural lands using
competitive grants of up to five years. It would replace the Ground and
Surface Water Conservation Program. Five identified priority areas would
receive up to 50% of the funds each year. Elements to be used in grant
applications and criteria for selecting proposals are specified. Funding
would be $60 million annually, with administrative expenses limited to
3%.
Section 2107 would reauthorize the Grassroots Source Water Protection
Program, increasing annual funding levels million to $20 million through
FY2012.
Section 2108 would reauthorize, without amendment, the Conservation
of Private Grazing Lands Program.
Section 2109 would reauthorize, without amendment, the Great Lakes
Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control.
Section 2110 would reauthorize the Farmland Protection Program
(FPP). The FPP uses long-term agreements and easements to protect
agricultural lands meeting certain qualifications from conversion to nonagricultural uses. It would be renamed the Farm and Ranchland Protection
Program. Program priorities would be to protect productive soils that are
at risk of non-agricultural development, and to support implementation of
state and local policies. A detailed certification process for eligible
participants is spelled out, with certification to be reviewed every three
years; a conservation plan would be required if highly erodible land is
protected; and the federal share could not exceed 50% of the easement’s
fair market value. (Funding levels would be authorized in Section 2401.)
Section 2111 would reauthorize, without amendment, the Farm Viability
Program.
Section 2112 would reauthorize the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
(WHIP). WHIP protects and promotes wildlife and fish species and their
habitat. The cost-share for long-term agreements would be increased from
15% to 25%. (Funding levels would be authorized in Section 2401.)
Section 2201 would reauthorize the Agricultural Management
Assistance Program. This program provides cost-sharing assistance to
address risk-related problems in 15 specified states where crop insurance
enrollment has been historically low. Hawaii and Virginia would be made
eligible. Of the funds made available, 50% would go to conservation
activities, 10% would go to the Agriculture Marketing Service, and 40%
would go to the Risk Management Agency.
Section 2202 would amend the Resource Conservation and Development
Program (RC&D). RC&D, a multi-country program to promote
CRS-11
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
conservation programs in rural areas, would be amended to emphasize
locally led planning, and to authorize a coordinator for each council to
provide technical assistance.
Section 2203 would reauthorize the Small Watershed Rehabilitation
Program. It would provide $65 million annually in discretionary funding
for FY2008 through FY2012 and $50 million annually in mandatory
funding for FY2009 through FY2012.
Section 2301 would authorize a new Chesapeake Bay Program for
Nutrient Reduction and Sediment Control. Provisions would require that
the Secretary of Agriculture develop a comprehensive restoration plan
within two years of enactment and specifies topics the plan should
address. It would provide mandatory funding starting at $10 million in
FY2008 and growing each year to $55 million in FY2012 for restoration
and enhancement projects. Other provisions would limit federal spending
on any project to $5 million, specify a minimum non-federal cost-sharing
level of 35%, and make operation and maintenance non-federal
responsibilities.
Section 2302 would authorize a new Voluntary Public Access and
Habitat Incentive Program. This program would provide grants to
encourage producers to provide public access for wildlife-related
purposes. Annual appropriations of $20 million for FY2008 through
FY2012 would be authorized.
Section 2303 would authorize a new Muck Soils Conservation Program.
This program would make payments of between $300 and $500 per acre
to conserve and improve muck soils, as defined. Annual appropriations
of $50 million for FY2008 through FY2012 are authorized.
Section 2401 would authorize funding levels for many of the mandatory
conservation programs. It would authorize funding for the Conservation
Security Program ($1,454 million between FY2007 and FY2012 and
$1,927 million between FY2007 and FY2017 for contracts signed before
10/1/07, and $5.1 billion between FY2012 and FY2017 for contracts
signed after 10/1/11); the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program ($125
million in FY2007, growing each year to $280 million in FY2012); the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program ($1.25 billion in FY2008,
growing each year to $2.0 billion in FY2012); and the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program (extends authorization at $85 million annually through
FY2012).
Section 2402 would improve technical assistance for producers. It
would make it easier for producers to use an approved third party, require
payments for technical services to be at least at market rates, require each
state to review and approve its technical assistance specifications, ensure
that technical assistance addresses the needs of specialty crop producers,
and permit agreements and contracts with non-federal entities to provide
technical assistance.
Section 2403 would authorize a new Cooperative Conservation
Partnership Initiative. This initiative would be established using 10% of
funds from three specified conservation programs (CSP, EQIP, and
WHIP), with 90% of those funds allocated to states and awarded by state
conservationists. This initiative would provide two- to five-year
competitive grants to carry out projects involving multiple producers and
cooperators. Criteria for considering grants and priorities for selection are
specified. The federal cost share would be at least 75%, and incentive and
bonus payments could be made for specified purposes.
CRS-12
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Section 2404 would reauthorize the regional equity provision. It would
increase the authorized amount for each eligible state to $15 million per
year.
Section 2405 would simplify and streamline access to conservation
programs. It authorizes a simplified and single application process for
individuals who wish to participate in conservation programs, and the
Secretary would report on how it has implemented this provision.
Section 2406 would authorize an annual report on conservation
program participation by specialty crop producers. The first report is to
be submitted within 180 days of enactment.
Section 2407 would authorize the development of performance
standards that would be used for market-based approaches. It would
require an Environmental Services Standards Board to be established to
set standards that could be used to promote market-based approaches to
conservation and environmental benefits produced by agriculture for
which there are no existing markets. Appropriations of $50 million would
be authorized, to remain available until expended.
Section 2408 would amend provisions authorizing state technical
committees. Changes would include specified representation by
agricultural interests; authorizing subcommittees, and shortening and
generalizing provisions that describe their responsibilities.
Section 2409 would add new provisions on payment limits. Payment
limits would be set at $60,000 per year for any single program authorized
by the farm bill, or $125,000 for multiple programs. Three conservation
would be excluded: WRP, FRPP, and GRP.
Section 2501 would amend the adjusted gross income limit.
Section 2502 would encourage the Secretary to develop sustainable
practices guidelines for specialty crop producers and processors when
administering the conservation title.
Section 2503 would require the Secretary to designate at least one
farmland information center. The center(s), funded by a portion of the
FRPP, would distribute information on farmland protection topics.
Section 2504 would authorize a pilot four-year crop rotation program
for peanuts. The contract would be with a producer and provide
mandatory funding not to exceed $10 million per year.
Senate Farm Bill (H.R. 2419, amended). The Senate Agriculture
Committee marked up and reported its version of the farm bill, S. 2302, on October
25, 2007 (S.Rept. 110-220). Other than the adoption of a chairman’s mark, the
conservation title was altered little in conference. The following week, the Senate
adopted a manager’s amendment (S.Amdt. 3500) that combined S. 2302 with a
revenue bill, S. 2242, and is a substitute to H.R. 2419. The Senate passed its version
of the farm bill on December 14, by a vote of 79 to 14, after adopting a wide-ranging
manager’s amendment (S.Amdt. 3855). All programs in the bill are authorized
from FY2008 through FY2012, unless noted. The provisions are summarized
below, and presented in much greater detail in the side-by-side description of current
law, the House-passed bill and the Senate-passed bill in the appendix.
!
!
Section 2001 would add definitions for beginning farmer and rancher,
Indian tribe, socially disadvantaged farmer, non-industrial private forest
land, and technical assistance.
Sections 2101 and 2201 would amend the compliance provisions for
highly erodible lands and wetlands, respectively, to provide a second
level of review for compliance violations.
CRS-13
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Section 2301 would move programs in the conservation title by
combining the Healthy Forests Reserve Program with other land
retirement programs in the Comprehensive Conservation Enhancement
Program, and placing EQIP within the new Comprehensive Stewardship
Incentives Program.
Section 2311 would reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program at
the current enrollment level of 39.2 million acres, and make numerous
other changes, including expanding eligible lands, adding topics that may
be considered when choosing contract offers, extending the wetland
program, and adding wildlife provisions.
Section 2312 would create a new Flooded Farmland Program within the
CRP for closed basins in the Northern Great Plains. Eligible land must
exceed 5 acres and have been flooded the preceding three crop years.
Section 2313 would authorize a new Wildlife Habitat Program within
the CRP to improve habitat on enrolled lands where softwood pine stands
have been established under contracts of up to five years.
Section 2321 would reauthorize the Wetlands Reserve Program,
allowing up to 250,000 acres to be enrolled each fiscal year. It would
authorize a new Wetland Reserve Enhancement Program and clarify how
compensation is to be calculated.
Section 2331 would place the Healthy Forest Reserve Program in the
conservation title, and allow it to use permanent easements.
Section 2341 would create a new Comprehensive Stewardship Incentives
Program covering EQIP and a new Conservation Stewardship Program
(CSP) that would replace the current CSP. It lists program purposes,
requires EQIP and the new CSP to be administered in a coordinated
manner and so as to avoid duplication between the two programs, defines
“resource of concern,” limits the number of concerns that can be identified
in a single portion of a state, and requires implementing regulations to be
issued within 180 days of enactment. The new CSP requires more than 13
million acres to be enrolled into the program annually in five-year
contracts, at an average cost of $19 per acre, and sets limits on how many
acres can participate in a state each year.
Section 2356 would reauthorize the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program and make numerous amendments, such as adding provisions to
address forestry and forest fire topics, making invasive species
management, pollinator habitat, and predator deterrence practices eligible
for incentive payments, providing technical assistance and payments to
producers for water conservation and irrigation practices, providing
additional assistance to beginning and socially-disadvantaged producers,
and prohibiting duplicate payments for the same practices from other
programs.
Section 2358 would reauthorize Conservation Innovation Grants under
EQIP, clarify that grants are to be used to develop and transfer innovative
conservation technologies, and encourage participation by specialty crop
producers.
Section 2359 would reauthorize the Ground and Surface Water
Conservation Program under EQIP at the current funding level,
authorize the program to work at a regional scale, and create a pilot
program for the Eastern Snake Aquifer.
Section 2360 would authorize a new effort under EQIP to assist
producers who choose to convert to organic agriculture, including
providing technical and financial assistance; financial assistance is limited
to a total of $80,000.
CRS-14
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Section 2361 would authorize $165 million for a new Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Conservation Program within EQIP, funded at a total of $165
million.
Section 2371 would reauthorize the Farmland Protection Program and
clarify who is eligible, delete the need for land to be a subject of a pending
offer to be eligible, add provisions clarifying aspects of cooperative
agreements, and require appraisals to follow accepted practices.
Section 2381 would reauthorize the Grasslands Reserve Program and
redefine eligible land, identify priority lands and permitted and prohibited
uses, specify considerations in evaluating offers, and allow certain lands
already enrolled in the CRP to be transferred into this program.
Section 2391 would authorize the new Conservation Stewardship
Program, which would replace the Conservation Security Program.
Participants would be enter into a contract in which they agree to meet
stewardship thresholds for resource concerns they agree to address on
eligible lands.
Section 2392 would extend the Conservation of Private Grazing Land
Program through FY2012.
Section 2393 would extend the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,
increasing the percentage of funds that can be used for long-term projects
from 15% to 25%, and give priority to projects that support the goals of
fish and wildlife conservation plans.
Section 2394 would extend the Grassroots Source Water Protection
Program through FY2012.
Section 2395 would extend the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control through FY2012.
Section 2396 would extend the Farm Viability Program through FY2012.
Section 2397 would create the Discover Watershed Demonstration
Project in the Upper Mississippi River basin to demonstrate approaches
to reducing the loss of nutrients into surface waters in at least 30 small
watersheds, and includes criteria by which those watersheds would be
selected.
Section 2398 would create an Emergency Landscape Restoration
Program replacing two current emergency programs to rehabilitate
agricultural lands after natural catastrophic events; it specifies remedial
actions and authorizes the purchase of flood plain easements.
Section 2399 would authorize a new Voluntary Public Access and
Habitat Incentive Program at $20 million annually to provide grants to
encourage public access for wildlife-dependent recreation.
Section 2401 would provide funding for the Conservation Security
Program ($2.317 billion to administer contracts entered into before the
date of enactment of this farm bill); the Conservation Stewardship
Program (no amount specified); the Farmland Protection Program ($97
million annually through FY2012); the Grasslands Reserve Program (a
total of $240 million through FY2012); and EQIP ($1.27 billion in
FY2008 and FY2009, and $1.3 billion in FY2010 through FY2012).
Section 2402 would reauthorize the regional equity provisions,
increasing the aggregate minimum amount each state is to receive
annually from $12 million to $15 million per year for six specified
programs.
Section 2403 would improve access to conservation programs by
providing that 10% of conservation funds be used to assist beginning and
socially disadvantaged producers; by expanding the use of conservation
innovation grants; by requiring the Secretary to offer higher levels of
technical assistance to beginning and socially disadvantaged producers,
CRS-15
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
where possible; and by allowing the Secretary to implement cooperative
agreements with entities who assist beginning and socially disadvantaged
producers.
Section 2404 would address the delivery of technical assistance and the
use of third party providers.
Section 2405 would alter the administrative requirements for
conservation programs, making changes that include requiring the
Secretary to develop a streamlined application process, encouraging
partnerships and cooperative efforts using at least 5% of conservation
program funds, and requiring monitoring of program performance by
applying the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act.
Section 2406 would recognize environmental service markets by
requiring the Secretary to develop a framework to facilitate participation
in these markets and requiring three reports to Congress on
implementation by specified dates.
Section 2501 would provide direction on state technical committee
operations by requiring the Secretary to develop standardized operating
procedures and updating a list of eligible agencies.
Section 2601 would reauthorize the Agricultural Management
Assistance Program through FY2012 and makes Idaho an eligible state.
Section 2602 would authorize a new Experienced Services Program
under which the Secretary can enter into agreements to hire older qualified
individuals to help administer conservation programs under certain
circumstances.
Section 2603 would update and clarify the provision of technical
assistance, and reauthorize and amend the Soil and Water Resources
Conservation Act.
Section 2604 would reauthorize the Small Watershed Rehabilitation
Program, providing such sums as are necessary.
Section 2605 would amend the Resource Conservation and Development
Program, requiring the Secretary designate a coordinator for each council.
Section 2606 would amend provisions related to the National Natural
Resources Conservation Foundation.
Section 2607 would reauthorize the Desert Terminal Lakes Program
through FY2012.
Section 2608 would deny crop insurance benefits on land parcels greater
than 5 acres converted to cropland from native sod after the date of
enactment, and requires an annual report to Congress on the extent of
conversions.
Section 2609 would retain program eligibility for producers who
participated in a study of aquifer recharge potential in the Texas high
plains.
Section 2610 would require the Department of State to cover certain
expenses incurred by EPA employees working on international treaties.
Section 2611 would allow certain salinity control activities to be carried
out by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Colorado River Basin.
Section 2612 would fund the Great Lakes Program for Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control by authorizing $5 million annually from FY2007
through FY2012.
Conference Committee. Multiple meetings have held by staff to resolve
some of the many differences between the two bills in anticipation of decisions about
funding levels. The conference committee is anticipated to begin more formal
deliberations as soon as a funding agreement is reached. Many of these differences
CRS-16
are a part of the issues shaping the conservation debate that were identified above.
These include the following:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Conservation Funding. Both bills, as passed, would provide similar total
amounts for conservation between FY2008 and FY2012 (an additional
$4.5 billion for the House and $5.1 billion for the Senate) but allocate it
in very different ways; the allocation questions may become more
contentious if a smaller amount is available.
Energy and Agriculture. Both bills address energy topics in ways that
could have significant effects on conservation efforts, but not in the
conservation title.
Green Payments. The Senate bill would create a major new green
payment program with an enrollment goal of more than 13 million acres
per year, while the House bill would not provide funding for the current
program until FY2012.
Payment Limits. The two bills differ in how they address payment limits
for conservation programs; the House bill would set some general limits
and both bills would set some program-specific limits.
Program Simplification. The House bill would not simplify programs by
combining them, while the Senate bill would combine some programs;
both bills would simplify producer access to programs.
Program Delivery Capacity. The House bill would improve producer
access to technical assistance, while the Senate bill would allow retired
qualified individuals to be hired; the Senate bill would provide more
conservation funding to beginning and socially disadvantaged producers
than the House bill.
New Issues. Both bills would address numerous new issues or change
emphasis among issues that programs already address; some of these
issues are addressed in both bills, and others are not.
Market-Based Approaches. Both bills contain a section encouraging the
development of market-based approaches, but many of the provisions
differ.
Conservation at Larger Scales. Provisions in both bills would encourage
conservation at a larger scale
Partnership Opportunities. Both bills contain provisions to foster
partnerships; the House provisions are extensive and the Senate provisions
are in the manager’s amendment.
Measuring Accomplishments. Both bills would require additional efforts
to measure accomplishments, and the Senate bill would reauthorize the
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act.
Other Conservation Proposals
In developing their bills, both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees
drew from other proposals and suggestions, and alternatives were developed in both
chambers and offered for consideration by the House. Some of these other proposals
are summarized below, and offer additional perspective on the range of options that
received congressional attention.
The Administration’s Proposal. The Administration offered its set of 10
conservation farm bill proposals to Congress on February 2, 2007, then submitted
implementing legislative language in late April. These proposals came out of a
process that started with more than 50 listening sessions, followed by issuing four
broad theme papers. The theme paper on conservation and the environment, issued
CRS-17
in June 2006, identified four “generalized alternatives”: (1) improve existing
conservation programs; (2) provide “green payments” for land in production to
enhance environmental benefits and provide income support; (3) encourage private
sector markets for environmental services; and (4) expand conservation compliance
or establish a standard of care.13 The Administration estimated that its ten
conservation proposals would cost $7.8 billion above current conservation costs. The
proposals (and additional costs) are as follows:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Consolidate six financial assistance programs that provide conservation
cost-sharing funds and technical assistance in a revised Environmental
Quality Incentives Program, and create a new sub-program to deal with
water quality and quantity issues on a regional basis ($4.25 billion over
the current 10-year baseline).
Amend the Conservation Security Program to emphasize higher levels
of conservation, and expand enrollment from the current 15 million acres
to 96 million acres in 10 years, while simplifying the program ($500
million above the current 10-year baseline).
Consolidate the three easement programs for working lands into a single
program ($900 million above the current 10-year baseline).
Increase the focus of the Conservation Reserve Program on
environmentally sensitive lands, with priority for whole fields enrolled
on which biomass crops for energy are produced.
Increase the Wetlands Reserve Program enrollment cap to 3.5 million
acres, and consolidate this Reserve with the floodplain easement program
($2.125 billion increase above the 10-year baseline).
Expand conservation compliance to include “sod saver” to discourage
conversion of grasslands into cropland.
Designate 10% of financial assistance for each conservation program to
socially disadvantaged and beginning producers.
Encourage the development of private environmental markets to
supplement and complement conservation programs ($50 million).
Repeal regional equity provisions requiring a minimum amount of
conservation funds go to each state, in order to increase allocations for the
most meritorious program areas.
Consolidate the two emergency conservation programs.
Other Selected Legislative Proposals. Several bills containing
conservation proposals for the next farm bill have been introduced. Two bills —
H.R. 1551 (Kind)/S. 919 (Menendez) and H.R. 1600 (Cardoza) — received more
attention because of their broad scope, and also because each had more than 100
cosponsors. Both bills would have provided a greater increase conservation spending
and expanded the conservation effort in other ways. They appear to represent much
of the range of policy and program changes sought by the conservation and
environmental communities. Provisions in both of the larger bills are outlined below.
These bills are a sampling from a larger group of legislative proposals.
H.R. 1551 (Representative Kind)/S. 919 (Senator Menendez). H.R.
1551, the Healthy Farms, Foods, and Fuels Act of 2007, was introduced on March
13
For more information on the green payment concept, as well as a comparison of views
about it from the United States and Europe, see CRS Report RL32624, Green Payments in
U.S. and European Union Agricultural Policy by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS-18
15, 2007, and S. 919, an identical bill, was introduced on March 20, 2007. H.R. 1551
had more than 100 cosponsors while S. 919 also has several cosponsors. The bill has
four titles, and about 70% of the bill (by length) is the conservation title. All
reauthorizations are through FY2013, unless otherwise noted. Topics addressed in
this bill also are addressed in H.R. 1600, unless they are identified as not being in
both bills. The conservation title of H.R. 1551/S. 919 includes the following
provisions:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Section 101 would reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program and
make numerous amendments, such as greater consideration of animals and
forests, and greater focus on environmental benefits.
Section 102 would reauthorize the Wetlands Reserve Program, increasing
the total enrollment goal to 5 million acres and specifying annual
maximums. It would make other amendments, such as making the
protection of rare and endangered species a priority.
Section 103 would reauthorize the Conservation Security Program,
making changes in the structure, eliminating maintenance payments,
changing some enrollment procedures, and limiting technical assistance
expenditures to 15% of a contract’s value.
Section 104 would reauthorize the Grasslands Reserve Program,
increasing total enrollment to 10 million acres and setting several
enrollment goals. It would add provisions for biodiversity, pasture-based
operations, and an enhancement subprogram where states contribute a
portion of the funds (similar to the Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program in the CRP).
Section 105 would reauthorize the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, at $2.0 billion annually. Among other changes, it would add
new provisions for forest stewardship, enhanced manure and nutrient
management, and state performance incentives; and increase funding for
two subprograms, Conservation Innovation Grants and Ground and
Surface Water Conservation.
Section 106 would reauthorize the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,
increasing funding to $300 million annually in FY2012 and FY2013. It
would also expand the use of long-term agreements, add priorities, and
promote fish habitat.
Section 107 would authorize a new Cooperative Conservation
Partnership Initiative using two- to five-year grants involving multiple
producers. It lists numerous evaluation criteria for applications, eight
program priorities, and funding criteria. It would provide funding by
using 20% of the annual allocation for several specified conservation
programs.
Section 108 would reauthorize the regional equity provisions and increase
the minimum amount each state would receive to $15 million annually.
Section 109 would exclude conservation payments from the cap on
adjusted gross income that is used to exclude from farm programs,
potential participants with very high annual incomes.
Section 110 would increase annual funding for the Agricultural
Management Assistance Program to $40 million and specifies the
allocations among the three component subprograms. (Provision not
included in H.R. 1600.)
Section 111 would authorize $50 million a year for a new Community
Forests and Open Space Program to help protect forests in and near
communities in states designated by the Secretary. (Provision not
included in H.R. 1600.)
CRS-19
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Section 112 would authorize the Farmland Protection Program through
FY2012 at $300 million annually.
Section 113 would authorize mandatory funding, with no amount
specified, for the Healthy Forests Reserve Program. (Provision not
included in H.R. 1600.)
Section 114 would authorize an Integrated Pest Management Initiative
in priority areas identified by the Secretary that would be integrated with
EQIP and use a portion of the funds provided for EQIP and CSP.
Section 115 would authorize a new initiative for socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers, funded using up to 10% of the money provided to
several conservation programs. (Provision not included in H.R. 1600.)
Section 116 would establish a Conservation Loan Guarantee Program.
It specifies loans qualifications and provides an unspecified amount of
mandatory funds for implementation.
Section 117 would authorize $40 million annually in mandatory funding
to establish a pilot program for Comprehensive Conservation Planning
in five specified locations (the Chesapeake Bay watershed, for example,
is one of them). (Provision not included in H.R. 1600.)
Section 118 would address technical assistance by clarifying the role of
third-party providers and establishing a financial-aid program to assist
students in exchange for a commitment to work for NRCS.
H.R. 1600 (Representative Cardoza). H.R. 1600, the Equitable Agriculture
Today for a Healthy America or the EAT Healthy America Act, was introduced on
March 20, 2007. This legislation had more than 100 cosponsors, including several
members of the House Agriculture Committee. This bill encompasses more farm
bill topics than H.R. 1551, with eight titles. Some have referred to it as the
California farm bill because provisions center on topic of greatest interest to
California producers. The conservation title is more than 40% of the total bill (by
length). All programs in this bill are authorized through FY2012. Sections that are
identical or nearly identical to similar provisions in H.R. 1551 are identified as such.
The conservation title includes the following sections.
!
!
!
!
!
!
Section 201 would reauthorize the Conservation Security Program by
adding eight findings about importance and potential benefits.
Section 202 would reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program and
make numerous amendments, such as greater recognition of rare and
endangered species and habitat, and limiting the portion of land in the
program that can be enrolled through a general signup.
Section 203 would reauthorize the Wetland Reserve Program. It is
similar to Section 102 of H.R. 1551.
Section 204 would reauthorize the Farmland Protection Program, and is
identical to Section 112 of H.R. 1551.
Section 205 would reauthorize the Grasslands Reserve Program and
establish annual enrollment levels increasing to 3 million acres in 2012
and annually thereafter. Other changes would include allowing land in the
CRP to be transferred into this program; adding considerable detail about
who can hold easements, and adding an enhancement subprogram where
states contribute a portion of the funds (similar to the CREP in CRP).
Section 206 would reauthorize the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,
and is similar to Section 106 of H.R. 1551. It would give more emphasis
to rare and endangered species and their habitat, and require coordination
with state wildlife plans.
CRS-20
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Section 207 would reauthorize the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, gradually increasing the annual authorization to $2 billion in
FY2012. It would amend the existing statute in several ways, such as
modifying incentive payment rates. It would increase funding for Ground
and Surface Water and Innovative Grants subprograms, and add a new
section on air quality.
Section 208, which would authorize a new Cooperative Conservation
Partnership Initiative, is nearly identical to Section 107 of H.R. 1551.
Section 209 would reauthorize the regional equity provisions, providing
a minimum of $12 million annually to each state.
Section 210 would authorize an Integrated Pest Management Initiative
that is nearly identical to Section 114 of H.R. 1551.
Section 211 would address technical assistance and is similar to Section
118 of H.R. 1551. In addition, it would require development of technical
assistance for specialty crop producers.
Section 212 would establish a Conservation Loan Guarantee Program,
and is nearly identical to Section 116 of H.R. 1551.
Section 213 would amend the Emergency Conservation Program to add
providing assistance to clean up debris in nurseries affected by natural
disasters. (Provision not included in H.R. 1551.)
Section 214 would exclude conservation payments from the cap on
adjusted gross income, and is identical to Section 109 of H.R. 1551.
Section 215 would encourage the Secretary to develop guidelines for
voluntary sustainable practices for specialty crop producers. (Provision
not included in H.R. 1551.)
Section 216 would require the Secretary “whenever practicable” to assist
specialty crop producers in addressing the adverse impacts of long-term
climate change. (Provision not included in H.R. 1551.)
CRS-21
Appendix A. Comparison of the Conservation Titles in the
House and Senate Farm Bills (H.R. 2419)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
Sec. 1231(a-d) of the FSA authorizes the CRP
through calendar year 2007 at 39.2 million
acres. (16 U.S.C. 3831(a-d))
Extends authorization through calendar year 2012;
retains current acreage enrollment limit. [Sec.
2101(a-b)]
In addition to extending authorization through
calendar year 2012 and retaining current acreage
enrollment limit, adds pollinator habitat to the general
purposes (and elsewhere), and expands eligible land to
include some types of marginal pastureland and land
enrolled in a new flooded farmland program. [Sec.
2311(a-c)]
Sec. 1231(f) of the FSA lists the Chesapeake
Bay region (PA, MD, and VA) , the Great
Lakes Region, and Long Island Sound as
priority areas (16 U.S.C. 3831f)
Deletes states but retains Chesapeake Bay region
[Sec. 2101(b)]
Makes same change as House, and adds the prairie
pothole region, the Grand Lake St Mary’s Watershed,
and the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer as priority areas.
[2311(d)]
Sec. 1231(h) of the FSA authorizes a 1 million
acre pilot program within the CRP for wetlands
and buffer areas (16 U.S.C. 3831h)
Extends program through calendar year 2012.
[Sec. 2101(e)]
Extends program through calendar year 2012; expands
eligibility to include other types of land, such as
certain shallow water areas and certain agricultural
drainage water treatment collection areas. [2311(e)]
Sec. 1232(a)(7) of the FSA specifies a duty of
participants is limiting commercial uses; limits
haying and grazing on enrolled lands; allows
managed haying and grazing under certain
circumstances (16 U.S.C. 3832a(7))
Allows managed haying and grazing to control
invasive species, and adds detail on allowed uses,
enrolled lands, and adjustments to annual contract
payments. [Sec. 2101(f)]
Allows managed haying and grazing to control
invasive species and permits managed haying and
grazing that is a part of a conservation plan. [Sec.
2311(h)]
Sec. 1234(c) of the FSA establishes a
framework for calculating annual rental
payments (16 U.S.C. 3834c)
Adds a requirement that National Agriculture
Statistical Service conduct and release an annual
survey of dryland and irrigated cropland cash
rental rates in counties with more than 20,000
acres of crop and pasture land. [Sec. 2101(g)]
Identical to House provisions, and also requires the
Secretary to give preference to local owners or
operators when considering competing offers
providing equivalent benefits, and adds pollinators and
fish habitat to the contract selection criteria. [Sec.
2311(j)]
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
CRS-22
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
No comparable provisions on incentives for
land transfers in current law.
Amends sec. 1235 (Contracts) by adding a new
subsection to facilitate the transfer of CRP land
from a retiring owner to a beginning or sociallydisadvantaged producer to return land to
production, and allows new owner to begin land
improvements or start organic certification process
one year before CRP contract expires; provides
payments to the retiring owner for 2 years after the
contract expires. [Sec. 2101(h)]
No comparable provisions.
Sec. 1235(e) of the FSA allows the Secretary to
terminate CRP contracts after 5 years if
contract was in effect before 1/1/95 (16 U.S.C.
3835e)
Allows the Secretary to terminate any contract
after 5 years, and prohibits the Secretary from
terminating contracts for land enrolled under a
continuous signup. [Sec. 2101(i) and (j)]
In addition to current law, allows the Secretary to
terminate a contract if a retired or disabled producer
suffers a financial hardship from taxes on rental
payments. [Sec. 2311(k)]
No comparable provision in current law.
No comparable provision.
Creates Flooded Farmland Program for the Northetrn
Great Plains within the CRP as a new sec. 1235B;
allows continuous enrollment; eligible land parcels
must exceed 5 acres, have been incapable of
production the preceding 3 crop years, have a cropping
history, and have no natural outlet. [Sec. 2312]
No comparable provision in current law.
No comparable provision.
Creates Wildlife Habitat Program for CRP participants
who have established softwood pine stands as a new
Sec. 1235C under contracts of up to 5 years to use
management practices that benefit wildlife; program
ends Sept. 30, 2011. [Sec. 2313]
Sec. 1237(a) of the FSA states that the purposes
of WRP are to restore and protect wetlands. (16
U.S.C. 3837a)
Adds to the purposes to create and to enhance
wetlands, and to purchase floodplain easements.
[Sec. 2102(a)]
No comparable provision.
Sec. 1237(b) of the FSA sets maximum
enrollment at 2.275 million acres, with an
annual calendar year enrollment goal of
Maximum enrollment set at 3.605 million acres.
Sets an annual fiscal year enrollment goal of
250,000 acres, of which not more than 10,000
Sets annual fiscal year enrollment goal of 250,000
acres, with no enrollment after FY2012. [Sec. 2321(1)]
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
CRS-23
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
250,000 acres. (16 U.S.C. 3837b)
acres may be flood plain easements. [Sec.
2102(b)]
Sec. 1237(c) of the FSA establishes
requirements for eligible lands through 2007.
(16 U.S.C. 3837c)
Also makes eligible; riparian areas, floodplain
land flooded in the past year or at least twice in the
past 10 years, and land that would contribute to
flood water storage, flow, or erosion control. [Sec.
2102(c)]
Replaces 2007 calendar year with FY2012. [Sec.
2321(2)]
Sec. 1237(e) of the FSA identifies ineligible
land to include lands already planted to timber
or pasture in the CRP. (16 U.S.C. 3837e)
Expands ineligible lands to include floodplains
where restoration practices would not be
productive or the land is already protected
adequately. [Sec. 2102(d)]
No comparable provision.
Sec. 1237A(f) of the FSA states compensation
to be paid in cash (in 5 to 30 payments)and not
to exceed the fair market value, as reduced by
the easement. (16 U.S.C. 3837a(f))
Compensation shall the lowest of 4 options; fair
market value percentage, market value percentage
determined by a survey, geographic cap, or
landowner’s offer. Also, the Secretary may use
non-federal contributions to administer this
program [Sec. 2102(e)]
Compensation shall be limited to lowest of 3 options;
an amount necessary to encourage enrollment, a limit
for a geographic area, or a landowner’s offer.
Compensation may be in 1 to 30 payments. [Sec.
2322(b)(3-4)]
Sec.1237C(c) of the FSA lists three
considerations the Secretary is to use when
considering offers are listed. (16 U.S.C.
3837c(c))
New subsection lists 3 additional criteria for
ranking offers (conservation benefits, costeffectiveness, and offer of a financial
contribution), and conservation benefits of
floodplain lands. [Sec. 2102(f)]
No comparable provision.
Sec. 1237D(c)(4) of the FSA waives limits for
public entities receiving payments through the
wetland and environmental enhancement
programs. (16 U.S.C. d(c)(4))
Provision replaced with a new Wetland Reserve
Enhancement Program, where state contribution
are used to increase payments. [Sec. 2102(g)]
Adds provision at the end of sec. 1237A creating a
new Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program [Sec.
2322(c)]
No comparable provision in current law.
New sec. 1237G authorizes the WRP from
FY2008 through FY2012. [Sec. 2402(h)]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision in current law.
No comparable provision.
New subsection requires a report to both agriculture
committees by 1/1/2010 on the implications of longterm easements on USDA resources. [Sec. 2322(d)]
CRS-24
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
Conservation Security Program (CSP)
Sec. 1238 of the FSA defines 15 terms;
including “base payment”, conservation
security contract”, “contract security plan”,
“contract security program”, “enhanced
payment”, “nondegradation standard”,
“resource-conserving crop rotation”, “resource
management system”, “tier I conservation
security contract”, “tier II conservation security
contract”, and “tier III conservation security
contract.” (16 U.S.C. 3838)
Twelve terms are defined and definitions that are
new terms or different from current law include;
“conservation plan”, “conservation practice”,
“management intensity”, “nondegradation
standard”, “priority resource of concern”,
“producer”, “resource-specific index”, “sociallydisadvantaged farmer or rancher”, and “structural
practice”. [Sec. 2103(a)]
For all future contracts, the CSP would be replaced by
a new Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP),
placed within a new Comprehensive Stewardship
Incentives Program. The new incentives program,
placed in sec. 1240T of the FSA, is discussed below in
the new programs subsection and is sec. 2341 in this
bill. The new CSP, also in sec. 2341, is discussed in
this section.
The new CSP defines 15 terms in sec. 1240V. [Sec.
2341]
Secs. 1238A(a-b)) establishes CSP between
FY2003 and FY2011. Defines eligible
producers and eligible lands (and excluded
lands (land enrolled in multi year land
retirement programs and land not in crop
production at least 4 of the preceding 6 years)).
(16 U.S.C. 3838a(a-b))
Establishes CSP from FY2012 through FY2017.
To be eligible, producers must submit an
acceptable offer that addresses “at least one
priority resource of concern to a minimum level of
management intensity.” Eligible land would not
include incidental forest land. [Sec. 2103(a)]
Defines and lists purposes for new CSP in sec. 1240U
and establishes program through FY2012 in sec.
1240W. [Sec. 2341]
(Note: Establishes new CSP as a conforming
amendment in sec. 2391, adds a new Sec. 1238D
which provides $2.317 billion to administer existing
CSP contracts, to remain available until spent.
Prohibits new or renewed contracts under old CSP
after farm bill is enacted.)
Secs 1238A(d-3) specifies terms for 3 tiers of
conservation contracts. Identifies topics that
may be addressed in contracts. Contracts are 5
years under tier 1, and 5 to 10 years under tiers
2 and 3. Circumstances and requirements for
modifying, terminating, and renewing contracts
are specified. Contracts may be renewed for 5
to 10 years (16 U.S.C. 3838a(d-e))
Limits program to 1 type of contract of 5 years
and describes 5 elements to be in all contracts, but
eliminates list of topics to be addressed. Contracts
could no longer be terminated, without penalty, by
a producer who is required to modify a contract.
Contracts may be renewed for 1 additional 5 year
period. New provisions on evaluation of offers
and coordination with organic certification are
added. [Sec. 2103(a)]
In sec. 1240X, defines eligible land and eligible
producers; land must have been planted to crops 4 of
the preceding 6 years. Contents of contracts are
specified, and are for 5 years, with a 5 year renewal if
certain conditions are met. Considerations in
evaluating contract offers are specified. Additional
provisions discuss terminating and changing contracts.
Terms of enhancement and supplemental payments are
specified. Duties of the producer are specified. [Sec.
2341]
Sec. 1238C specifies that duties of the
Secretary include making payments early in
each fiscal year, the components of payments
Duties are altered to include identification of
priority resources of concern at the state level,
with a limit of no more than 5 concerns in any
Duties listed in sec. 1240X include making the
program available on a continuous enrollment basis,
providing assistance to producers, and maintaining
CRS-25
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
for each tier, annual payment limits for each
tier ($20,000 for tier 1, $35,000 for tier 2, and
$45,000 for tier 3), minimum requirements for
practices, and requirements for implementing
regulations, (16 U.S.C. 3838c)
geographic area of a state, limits total payments
under a contract to $150,000 over 5 years, and the
environmental needs associated with agriculture
are to be considered in allocations to states. A
new subsection requires the Secretary to compile
data on specified program contract and payment
topics. [Sec. 2103 (a)]
contract and payment information that will support
program monitoring and evaluation, and enable
specialty crop producers to participate. [Sec. 2341]
No comparable provisions in current law.
New subsections specify that all contracts in effect
on the date of enactment and signed before
10/1/2007 will remain in effect, and no new or
renewed contracts can be entered into under the
2002 program after 9/30/2007. [Sec. 2103 (b) and
(c)]
No comparable provisions.
No comparable provisions in current law.
No comparable provisions.
Between the date of enactment and 10/30/2017, the
program shall; enroll up to 79.628 million acres and
attempt to enroll 13.273 million acres per year, be
available nationwide, be run at a average annual cost
of $19 per acre, provide for participation by small
farms, and allocate to each state each year the lesser of
20,000 acres or 2.2% of the eligible land. [Sec. 2341]
No comparable provisions in current law.
No comparable provisions.
Sec. 1240Y requires regulations to be issued within
180 days of enactment. [Sec. 2341]
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
Sec. 1240 of the FSA lists the purposes of the
program as promoting production and
environmental quality as compatible goals, and
optimizing environmental benefits by working
in 5 specified areas. (16 U.S.C. 3839aa)
Forest management and organic transition are
added to the program purposes. Descriptions of 2
of the 5 purposes are revised to recognize energy
conservation and conservation on forest lands.
[Sec. 2105(a)]
Forest management is added to the statement of
program purposes, and pollinators and fuels
management are recognized in the amplifying
statements. [Sec. 2351]
Sec. 1240A of the FSA defines 6 terms;
“beginning farmer or rancher”, “eligible land”,
Adds forestry, forest management practices, and
coordinated implementation to the “land
Adds aquaculture to the “Eligible land” definition;
adds forestry to the “land management practice”
CRS-26
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
“land management practice”, “livestock,
practice”, and “structural practice.” (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-1)
management practice” definition, adds alpacas and
bison to the “livestock” definition, and adds
definitions of “integrated pest management” and
“socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher”. [Sec.
2105(b)]
definition; adds conservation planning practices to
“practices;” defines “producer” to include custom
feeding businesses and contract growers; and adds
firebreaks to “structural practice”. [Sec. 2352]
Sec. 1240B(a-c) of the FSA authorizes EQIP
through FY2010. Eligible practices are
defined. Contracts are 1 to 10 years. Bidding
down is prohibited. (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(a-c))
Authorizes EQIP through FY2012. The definition
of eligible practices is amended to include organic
certification, using technical services from
approved third party providers, and improving
energy efficiency and renewable energy systems.
[Sec. 2105(c)]
Authorizes EQIP through FY2012. Expands permitted
practices to include conservation planning. Limits
contracts to a maximum of 5 years. Deletes
subsection 1240B(c), which prohibits bidding down.
[Sec. 2353(a-c)]
Sec. 1240B(d)(2) of the FSA allows limited
resource and beginning producers to receive not
more than a 90% federal cost share. (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-2(d))
Adds socially disadvantaged producers, and sets
the federal cost share at 90%, and provides an
increased federal cost-share of 90% for using
gasifier technology for certain purposes. [Sec.
2105(d-e)]
Gives up to 90% in financial assistance to sociallydisadvantaged and beginning producers, and allows
for advanced payments to purchase materials and
contracting. [Sec. 2353(c)]
Sec. 1240B(e) of the FSA provides incentive
payments to perform land management
practices, with special emphasis given to
practices that promote specified goals. (16
U.S.C. 3839aa-2(e))
Identifies 3 additional purposes for incentive
payments (receiving technical services from
approved third party providers, developing a
comprehensive nutrient management plan, and
implementing energy efficiency and renewable
energy projects), and adds pollinator habitat to list
of purposes receiving special emphasis. [Sec.
2105(f)]
Predator species protected under the Endangered
species Act, gray wolves, grizzly bears, and black
bears are to the list of purposes receiving special
emphasis. [Sec. 2353(c)(3)]
Sec. 1240B(g) of the FSA requires that 60% of
payments go to practices related to livestock
production through FY2007. (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-2(g))
Extends the 60% of payments to livestock
production requirement through FY2012. [Sec.
2105(g)(2)]
Same as House. [Sec. 2353(c)(4)]
No comparable provision in current law.
Requires the Secretary to reserve at least 5% of
program funds each for beginning producers, and
for socially disadvantaged producers for at least 90
days after the program funds have been made
No comparable provision.
CRS-27
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
available. [Sec. 2105(g)]
No comparable provision in current law.
No comparable provision.
Adds new subsections to give priority to improve
water conservation, and improve air quality where
certain conditions, such as being in a nonattainment
area, exist. Requires participants to have (or expect) at
least $15,000 in gross sales from a farming operation.
[Sec. 2353(c)(6)]
No comparable provision in current law.
Makes market agencies and custom feeding
businesses eligible to participate. [Sec. 2105(h)]
See definition of “producer, “in Sec. 2352, above.
Sec. 1240C of the FSA gives higher priority for
participation in EQIP to producers using costeffective conservation practices and practices
that address national conservation priorities.
(16 U.S.C. 3839aa-3)
Identifies 5 priorities for applications and specifies
a streamlined evaluation process for operations
with “substantial and sound environmental
management systems” using a limited number of
practices. [Sec. 2105(i)]
Adds a higher priority for improving conservation
practices or systems in place at the time of the contract
offer. [Sec. 2354]
Sec. 1240E of the FSA defines the general
contents of a producer’s EQIP plan, and calls
on the Secretary to avoid duplication with other
conservation plans. (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-5)
Requires the planning requirements to be
consistent with forest plans, and adds to the
avoidance of duplication provisions a subsection
to consider an air or water quality permit that
meets regulatory requirements as an acceptable
plan. [Sec. 2105 (k)]
Forestry language identical to House bill. [Sec. 2356]
Sec. 1240F of the FSA calls on the Secretary to
assist the producer in developing and
implementing their plans by providing funding,
information, and training. (16 U.S.C. 3839aa6)
Adds a new subsection listing 3 criteria that must
be met before the Secretary can provide assistance
for practices with a primary purpose of water
conservation. [Sec. 2105 (l)]
No comparable provision.
Sec. 1240H of the FSA provides for a
competitive grants program within EQIP, on a
matching basis, to implement innovative
conservation practices; 2 examples are listed
(using market systems in pollution reduction
and using innovative practices, such as storing
Adds detail on qualities of eligible projects while
deleting the 2 examples, establishes a pilot
program for conservation planning in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, and adds a new
subsection to assist producers who are meeting
state and local regulatory air quality requirements.
Adds nonindustrial private forest lands to the list of
potential recipients of innovative technologies. Adds
two items to the list of examples; transfer innovative
technologies to nonindustrial private forest land in
production, and assist in specialty crop production.
[Sec. 2358]
CRS-28
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
carbon in soil); no funding is specified. (16
U.S.C. 3839aa-8)
Provides funding from EQIP as follows: in total,
$30 million in FY2008 growing each year to $75
million in FY2012; with air quality receiving $10
million in FY2008 and growing to $55 million in
FY2012, $5 million going to organic and specialty
crop producers annually, and $5 million going to
the pilot program annually. [Sec. 2105(m)]
Sec. 1240I of the FSA creates a Ground and
Surface Water Conservation Program
(GSWCP) within EQIP for activities that will
result in a net savings of ground or surface
water; lists 6 types of eligible activities
(improve irrigation systems, for example), and
provides mandatory funding of $25 million in
FY2002, growing to $60 million annually in
FY2004 through FY2007. (16 U.S.C. 3839-aa9)
Replaces GSWCP with a Regional Water
Enhancement Program to also address water
quality, to make eligible governmental entities
(including irrigation and water districts) and
Indian tribes, and to implement the program on a
regional scale through cooperative agreements of
from 1 to 5 years; expands the list of eligible
activities; requires the Secretary to identify
priority areas. Lists 5 priority areas, which
together may receive no more than 50% of the
available funds. Establishes a process for
soliciting and selecting proposals and developing
implementation agreements, requires that all
landowners and producers in a region be given an
opportunity to participate, and that the program be
funded at $60 million per year in mandatory
funding through FY2012 and limits administrative
expenses to no more than 3% of the total provided.
[Sec. 2106]
Amends the funding provisions to provide $65 million
annually for FY2008 through FY2012, and $60
million annually thereafter; insures that future funding
will be based on past funding levels and that states
with aquifers encompassing multiple states and
exceeding a minimum withdrawal rate will receive
funding; and provides at least $20 million for the
Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer. [Sec. 2359]
Sec. 1240I(c)(2) of the FSA provides $50
million to carry out water conservation
activities in the Klamath River basin (Oregon
and California) as soon as possible (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-9(c)(2))
Klamath River basin is one of the 5 listed priority
areas under the new Regional Water Enhancement
Program. [Sec. 2106 (b)(2)]
No comparable provision. (Note: The Klamath Basin
is listed as 1 of 14 priority areas in the Partnerships
and Cooperation Program, discussed in the “Other
Conservation Programs” section, below.
No comparable provision in current law.
No comparable provision.
Adds program in new sec. 1240J at end of EQIP to
assist farmers who are converting to organic
production using contracts of between 3 and 4 years.
CRS-29
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
Payments are limited to $20,000 per year, and
contracts may be terminated if the producer is not
pursuing organic certification; to be implemented
within 180 days of enactment. [Sec. 2360]
No comparable provision in current law.
No comparable provision.
Adds a new sec. 1240K to provide $165 million
between FY2008 and FY2012 for a new Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Conservation Program. [Sec. 2361]
Sec. 1241(a) of the FSA authorizes mandatory
funding through FY2007 to carry out numerous
conservation programs. (16 U.S.C. 3841)
Extends authorization through FY2012.
[Sec. 2401(a)]
Identical to House bill. [Sec. 2401(a)]
Sec. 1241(a)(3) of the FSA authorizes funding
for the CSP at $1.954 billion from FY2006
through FY2010 and $5.65 billion from
FY2006 through FY2015. (16 U.S.C.
3841(a)(3))
Authorizes $1,454 million from FY2007 through
FY2012, and $1,927 million from FY2012 through
FY2017. In addition, for contracts signed after
Oct 1, 2011, provides $501 million in FY2012
and $4,646 million for FY2012 through FY2017.
[Sec. 2401(b)]
Authorizes $2,317 million for contracts entered into
before the date of enactment, to remain available until
spent, and an unspecified amount for the new
Conservation Stewardship Program. (Note:
Enrollment in the new program, like the CRP and
WRP, is measured in acres rather than dollars.) [Sec.
2401(a)(3-4)]
Sec. 1241(a)(4) of the FSA authorizes funding
for the FPP at; $50 million in FY2002, $100
million in FY2003, $125 million in FY2004
and FY2005, $100 million in FY2006, and $97
million in FY2007. (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(4))
Funding for the renamed Farm and Ranchland
Protection Program is authorized at; $125 million
in FY2008, $150 million in FY2009, $200 million
in FY2010, $240 million in FY2011, and $280
million in FY2012. [Sec. 2401(c)]
Funding for the FPP is authorized at $97 million
annually from FY2008 through FY2012. [Sec.
2401(a)(5)]
Sec. 1241(a)(5) of the FSA limits funding for
the GRP to a total of $254 million from
FY2003 through FY2007. (16 U.S.C.
3841(a)(5))
No provision. (Note: Bill sets acreage enrollment
limit in GRP provisions, but no funding limit.)
Funding for the GRP is limited to a total of $240
million for FY2008 through FY2012. (Note: Bill has
no acreage enrollment limit.) [Sec. 2401(a)(6]
Sec. 1241(a)(6) of the FSA authorizes funding
for EQIP at; $400 million in FY2002, $700
million in FY2003, $1,000 million in FY2004,
$1,200 million annually in FY2005 and
Funding for EQIP is authorized at; $1,250 million
in FY2008, $1,600 million in FY2009, $1,700
million in FY2010, $1,800 million in FY2011, and
$2,000 million in FY2012. [Sec. 2401(d)]
Funding for EQIP is authorized at; $1,270 million in
FY2008 and FY2009, and $1,300 million in FY2010FY2012. [Sec. 2401(a)(7)]
Conservation Program Funding
CRS-30
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
FY2006, $1,270 million annually in FY2007FY2009, and $1,300 million in FY2010. (16
U.S.C. 3841(a)(6))
Funding for WHIP is authorized at $85 million
annually through FY2012. [Sec. 2401(e)]
Identical to House bill. [Sec. 2401(a)(8)]
Sec. 1201 of the Food Security Act of 1985
(FSA) defines 18 terms that apply throughout
the conservation title . (16 U.S.C. 3801)
No provisions. (Note: some of the terms added by
the Senate bill in this section are defined for
specific conservation programs, as noted
elsewhere.)
Adds definitions of “beginning farmer or rancher”,
“Indian tribe”, “nonindustrial private forest land”,
“socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher”, and
“technical assistance.” [Sec. 2001]
Sec. 1211 of the FSA makes violators of the
conservation compliance program ineligible
for certain program benefits, and sec. 1212 lists
exceptions from full loss of eligibility. (16
U.S.C. 3811-3812a)
One exception, in sec. 1212(f), is to reduce the
penalty for producers who act in good faith or
commit violations that are minor or due to
uncontrollable circumstances. (16 U.S.C.
3812f)
No comparable provision.
Amends sec. 1212(f) to add a second level of review
by the state or district director, with technical
concurrence from the Natural Resources Conservation
Service if the Secretary has determined that this
exception should apply. [Sec. 2101]
Sec. 1221 of the FSA makes violators of
swampbuster ineligible for certain program
benefits, and sec. 1222 lists exceptions from
full loss of eligibility are specified. (16 U.S.C.
3821-3824)
One exception, in sec. 1222(h), is to reduce the
penalty for producers who act in good faith or
commit violations that are minor or due to
uncontrollable circumstances. (16 U.S.C.
No comparable provision.
Amends sec. 1222(h) to add a second level of review
by the state or district director, with technical
concurrence from the Natural Resources Conservation
Service if the Secretary has determined that this
exemption should apply. [Sec. 2201]
Sec. 1241(a)(7) of the FSA authorizes funding
for WHIP at; $15 million in FY2002, $30
million in FY2003, $60 million in FY2004, and
$85 million annually in FY2005-FY2007. (16
U.S.C. 3841(a)(7))
Other Conservation Programs
CRS-31
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
Sec. 1230 of the FSA establishes the
Comprehensive Conservation Enhancement
Program (CCEP) through calendar year 2002.
CCEP , which includes the CRP, WRP, and
EQIP, promotes long-term protection for
environmentally sensitive lands by using
easements and providing technical and
financial assistance. (16 U.S.C. 3830) (Note:
Administration of CCEP, the subject of sec.
1243, is described below in the “other
conservation programs” subsection)
No comparable provision. (Note: Amendments to
Sec. 1243 described below in the “other
conservation programs” subsection .)
Deletes sec. 1243 in current law, and moves some of
these provisions, amended, into this (and other)
sections. Extends CCEP through FY2012. Expands
CCEP to also provide for; reducing administrative
burdens, streamlining the application process, and
creating opportunities for partnerships. Deletes EQIP
from CCEP (moving it to the new Comprehensive
Stewardship Incentives Program), and adds Healthy
Forests Reserve Program. Changes include adding a
new exception under which the Secretary may exceed
the enrollment limitation when a state or local
regulation prohibits agricultural water use. In these
instances, the Secretary must enroll the land within
180 days of receiving a request, and must pay the
rental rate that in effect prior to implementing the
regulation. [Sec. 2301]
Sec. 1238H of the FSA defines “eligible
entity”, “eligible land”, “Indian tribe”, and
“program.” for the Farmland Protection
Program (FPP). (16 U.S.C. 3838h)
Expands eligible land definition to include historic
and archaeological resources. [Sec. 2110]
Modifies definition of eligible forest land, and makes
eligible other land that is needed for efficient
administration of an easement. [Sec. 2371(a)]
Sec. 1238I of the FSA establishes FPP to
purchase conservation easements to protect
topsoil by limiting nonagricultural uses on land
that is subject to a pending offer; the federal
cost may not exceed 50% of the value of the
easement, and the value of a charitable
donation by the seller may not exceed 25% of
the value of the easement; if multiple
applications are comparable, the Secretary may
not use cost alone to determine which one will
be funded. (16 U.S.C. 3838i)
Changes program name to Farm and Ranchland
Protection Program (FRPP); states will be certified
(certifications to be reviewed every 3 years) to
participate and receive program funds based on 4
listed requirements, and states may spend up to
10% of those funds for administrative costs.
Terms and conditions for agreements with eligible
entities (agreements to be reviewed every 3 years)
are listed. The Secretary may require in an
easement a contingent right to enforce the
easement. [Sec. 2110]
Changes the purpose of the program from protecting
topsoil to “protecting agricultural use and related
conservation values.” Adds three new subsections;
defining requirements for cooperative agreements with
participants, restating cost-sharing requirements, and
stating that the federal investment will be protected
while specifying that these easements are not a federal
acquisition of property. [Sec. 2317(b)]
Sec. 1238N of the FSA sets the maximum
The enrollment ceiling is an additional 1.34
Adds definitions of “eligible entity,” “eligible land,”
3822h)
CRS-32
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
enrollment at 2.0 million acres for the
Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) (see Sec.
1241(a)(5) for maximum funding), with all
enrolled parcels to be at least 40 contiguous
acres. Requires 40% of the land to be enrolled
in 10-20 year rental agreements and 60% in 30
year rental agreements and easements. (16
U.S.C. 3838n)
million acres, with at least 60% of these acres to
be enrolled using 30 year rental agreements and
easements. (Note: does not contain a maximum
funding limit.) [Sec. 2104(a) and (b)]
and “permanent conservation easement;” enrollment
options are a 30 year contract, 30 year easement, and
permanent easement. (Note: Limits the program by
setting a maximum funding level but sets no
maximum acreage limit (see “conservation funding
section” below.) [Sec. 2381]
No comparable provision in the GRP in current
law.
The Secretary may transfer certain land currently
in the CRP into the GRP, but limits the total in any
calendar year to no more than 10% of the acres
enrolled in the GRP. Requires the Secretary to
pay the lowest of 4 specified ways to calculate fair
market value. [Sec. 2104(c)]
Allows the Secretary to transfer certain land currently
in the CRP to a permanent easement under GRP, but
limits the total transferred in any calendar year to 10%
of the total funding available for the GRP in that year.
[Sec. 2381]
Sec. 1238O of the FSA specifies the duties and
requirements of landowners in the GRP, terms
of easements and agreements, and how
applications are to be evaluated. (16 U.S.C.
3838o)
No comparable provision.
Sec. 1238P specifies duties of landowners, specifies
considerations for the Secretary in evaluating offers,
specifies how levels of compensation are to be
calculated, and provides technical assistance. [Sec.
2381]
No comparable provision in the GRP in current
law.
No comparable provision.
A new sec. 1238Q specifies the terms and conditions
that apply to contracts and easements in the GRP,
including permitted and prohibited uses, minimum
requirements for a cooperative agreement, and that
the federal investment is protected while specifying
that these easements are not a federal acquisition of
property. [Sec. 2381]
No comparable provision in the GRP in current
law.
Authorizes a Grasslands Reserve Enhancement
Program. [Sec. 2104 (d)]
No comparable provision.
Sec. 1238Q(a) of the FSA allows the Secretary
to transfer the title of an easement in the GRP
to a organizations or a state. (16 U.S.C.
3838q(a))
Requires the Secretary to transfer the title of an
easement to a private organizations or a state.
[Sec. 2104 (e)]
No comparable provision.
CRS-33
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
The Healthy Forest Reserve Program
(HFRP) was authorized in forest legislation
(P.L. 108-148, Title V(16 U.S.C. 6571-6578))
and not placed in the conservation title.
No comparable provisions.
HFRP moves to new secs. 1237M-T. It improves
forest ecosystems to support endangered species
recovery, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration using
agreements and easements; federal financial cost share
is specified; and technical assistance is provided.
Authorizes such sums as necessary annually from
FY2008 through FY2012. [Sec. 2331]
Sec. 1238J of the FSA authorizes grants and
appropriates “such sums as are necessary” in
discretionary funding through FY2007 to
implement a Farm Viability Program. (16
U.S.C. 3838j)
Authorizes discretionary funding for program
through FY2012. [Sec. 2111]
Identical to provisions in House bill. [Sec. 2396]
Sec. 1240M(e) of the FSA authorizes the
Conservation of Private Grazing Land
Program and provides discretionary funding of
$60 million per year through FY2007. (16
U.S.C, 3839bb(e))
Extends the authorization of appropriations
through FY2012. [Sec. 2108]
Identical to House bill [Sec. 2392]
Sec. 1240N of the FSA authorizes Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) to
provide cost sharing payments to landowners
who improve habitat, with up to 15% of the
total made available in any years for
agreements that are longer than 15 years. (16
U.S.C. 3839bb-1)
A new subsection extends program authorization
through FY2012, allows additional funds to also
be used to meet regulatory requirements that
“reduces the economic scope of the producer’s
operation”, and increases the portion of funds for
long term agreements from 15% to 25%. [Sec.
2112]
Reauthorizes WHIP through FY2012, increases the
portion of funds for long term agreements from 15%
to 25%, and requires the Secretary to give priority to
projects that would foster the goals of state, regional,
and national fish and wildlife conservation plans. [Sec.
2393]
Sec. 1240O of the FSA authorizes a Grassroots
Source Water Protection Program to assist
state rural water associations that operate
wellhead and groundwater protection programs,
and authorizes $5 million annually through
FY2007 in discretionary funding. (16 U.S.C.
3839bb-2)
Authorizes $20 million annually in discretionary
funding from FY2008 through FY2012 and onetime funding of $10 million in mandatory funding
to remain available until spent. [Sec. 2107]
Authorizes $20 million annually in discretionary
funding from FY2008 through FY2012. [Sec. 2394]
Sec. 1240P of the FSA authorizes a Great
Extends the authorization of appropriations
Extends the authorization of appropriations through
CRS-34
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
Lakes Program for Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control, and provides $5 million
annually in discretionary funding through
FY2007. (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-3)
through FY2012. [Sec. 2109]
FY2012; specifies that program is to assist in
implementing the recommendations of a collaborative
restoration strategy, and gives priority to projects with
3 specified goals. [Sec. 2395].
Sec. 524(b)(1) of the Federal Crop Insurance
Act authorizes an Agricultural Management
Assistance Program for listed states that have
historic low participation rates in the federal
Crop Insurance Program. (7 U.S.C. 1524(b))
Adds Hawaii and Virginia to the list of eligible
states, and allocates 50% of the funds to NRCS,
10% to the Agricultural Marketing Service to
provide organic certification assistance, and 40%
to the Risk Management Agency. [Sec. 2201]
Adds Idaho to the list of eligible states and
reauthorizes the program through FY2012. [Sec. 2601]
Sec. 1528-1537 of the Agriculture and Food
Act of 1981 authorizes the Resource
Conservation and Development Program to
assist multi county areas develop and
implement a regional plan which may address
land conservation, water management,
community development or land management.
(16 U.S.C. 1528-1527)
Amends the Resource Conservation and
Development Program to provide a designated
coordinator to assist each approved area, and
delete Sec. 1534, which requires a program
evaluation to the agriculture committees before
June 30, 2005 [Sec. 2202]
Almost identical to House bill provisions. [Sec. 2605]
Sec. 14(h) of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act authorizes discretionary
and mandatory funding to implement a Small
Watershed Rehabilitation Program. (16
U.S.C. 1012)
Authorizes $50 million annually in mandatory
funding for FY20089 through FY2012 and extends
the FY2007 discretionary funding level through
FY2012. [Sec. 2203]
Authorizes such sums as necessary in discretionary
funding annually from FY2008 through FY2012. [Sec.
2604]
Sec. 1241(d) of the FSA authorizes a program
to promote regional equity, by giving every
state a priority to receive a total of at least $12
million annually from specified mandatory
funded programs. (16 U.S.C. 3841d)
Annual funding for regional equity is raised to at
least $15 million [Sec. 2404]
Annual funding for regional equity is raised to at least
$15 million, and crop insurance payments are added to
this calculation. The Secretary is to review and update
the conservation program state allocation formulas by
1/1/2012. [Sec. 2402]
Sec. 1242 of the FSA authorizes Delivery of
Technical Assistance directly or using a 3rd
party provider and specifies how 3rd party
providers are to be approved by the Secretary.
Authorizes cooperative agreements with non-
Expands use of 3rd parties using contracts. Adds
new subsections to pay providers at least
prevailing market rates when federal employees
are not available to provide these services, to
review and update all relevant technical assistance
Expands use of 3rd parties using contracts, calls on the
Secretary to develop national certification criteria and
approve any unique standards established at the state
level. Provides funds through each conservation
program, specifies minimum and maximum contract
CRS-35
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
federal entities to provide technical assistance.
(16 U.S.C. 3842)
specifications, and to address the needs of
specialty crop producers in the technical
specifications. [Sec. 2402]
terms, and requires the Secretary to review and adjust
certification requirements within 1 year of enactment.
Also requires the Secretary to review and revise
conservation practice standards. Specialty crop
provisions are generally identical to the House bill.
[Sec. 2404]
Sec. 1243 of the FSA authorizes
Administration of the Comprehensive
Conservation Enhancement Program
(CCEP) (includes CRP. WRP. And EQIP and is
authorized in Sec. 1230, discussed above).
Provisions include; avoiding duplication of
required conservation plans, limiting
enrollment under CRP and WRP to 25% of the
cropland in a county, protecting the interests of
share croppers and tenants, allowing approved
sources to provide technical assistance, and
using up to 5% of the funds from the mandatory
funded conservation programs to foster
cooperation through partnerships. (16 U.S.C.
3844)
Amends administration provisions by moving
subsections on acreage enrollment limitations,
tenant protection, obtaining technical assistance
from other approved sources to the end of sec.
1244; replaces the subsection on avoiding
duplication of plans with a subsection establishing
a new Cooperative Conservation Partnership
Initiative to carry out projects and initiatives that
address conservation topics on a scale larger than
an individual farm using competitive grants of 2 to
5 years. Specifies 14 criteria to be used in
reviewing applications and 9 priorities that
projects should address. Specifies duties of
participant and duties of the Secretary. Program to
be funded with 10% of the funding for CSP, EQIP,
and WHIP, and to be reallocated back to those
programs if not spent by April 1 of that year; the
federal share for each project will be at least 75%
of the cost. 90% of the funds to be allocated at the
state level. Incentive and bonus payments may be
used for 2 specified purposes. Administrative
costs are to be limited to 5% of any grant. [Sec.
2403]
Deletes sec. 1243 and moves retained provisions to
sec. 1230; see discussion of sec. 1230, above.
New sec. 1243(a) contains streamlined application
process provisions, and new sec. 1243(b) contains
endangered species provisions: both are discussed
below in “new programs” subsection. Establishes
Partnerships and Cooperation to undertake special
projects with multiple producers and working with
eligible partners to address conservation issues
recommended by the state conservationist. Uses all
the mandatory funded conservation programs except
CRP and WRP. Five project purposes are specified.
Application contents are listed. Duties of the
Secretary provisions include using 5 priorities when
selecting projects, using more detailed special rules
when considering regional water enhancement
projects, identifying 14 priority water project areas.
Project agreements may be up to 5 years. Funding is
10% of the mandatory funds allocated to each state
(excluding CRP, CSP, the new Conservation
Stewardship Program, and WRP), with 75% of the
total for intrastate projects and 25% for multi-state
projects. Requires monitoring and evaluation. [Sec.
2405]
Sec. 1244(a) of the FSA authorizes the
Secretary to provide beginning farmers and
ranchers and Indian tribes incentives to
participate in conservation programs. (16
Expands access to incentives to include socially
disadvantaged and limited resource farmers and
ranchers. [Sec. 2405(a)]
No comparable provision. (Note: provisions to assist
socially disadvantaged and limited resource farmers
and ranchers are in other sections of the bill.)
CRS-36
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
U.S.C. 3844(a))
Sec. 1261 authorizes state technical
committees (STC), and includes provisions
listing members and interests to be represented,
outlining STC duties, and specifying that the
committees are advisory only and have no
implementation or enforcement authority. (16
U.S.C. 3861-3862)
Provisions added include having at least 12
producers representing agriculture, and deleting
persons knowledgeable about conservation; and
new provisions creating subcommittees and listing
topics to be addressed. Responsibilities are
described more generally than under current law.
[Sec. 2408]
Adds nonindustrial private forest land owners to the
list of groups represented on the STC. [Sec. 2501]
Sec. 351 of the 1996 farm bill authorizes a
National Natural Resources Conservation
Foundation to raise private funds that will be
used to promote conservation. Program has
never been implemented. (16 U.S.C. 58015809)
No comparable provision.
Amends numerous provisions authorizing the
Foundation. [Sec. 2606]
Sec. 2507 of the FSA authorizes the Secretary
to transfer $200 million from the CCC to the
Bureau of Reclamation to ‘provide water to atrisk natural desert terminal lakes.” (43 U.S.C.
2211note)
No comparable provision.
Amends the desert terminal lakes provision to allow
funds to be used to lease water or to purchase land and
related interests in the Walker River Basin. [2607]
New Conservation Programs Authorized in One or Both Bills
No comparable provisions in current law.
Authorizes a new Chesapeake Bay Program for
Nutrient Reduction and Sediment Control in
Sec. 1240Q to carry out restoration, enhancement,
and preservation projects starting in 4 specified
watersheds, and implement a comprehensive plan
to be submitted by the Secretary to Congress
within 2 years of enactment. Mandatory funding
starts at $10 million in FY2008 and grows to $55
million in FY2012. The non-federal cost share to
implement projects is at least 35%, and the federal
share of any project can not exceed $5 million.
The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to be a
No comparable provision. (Note: Chesapeake Bay
program authorized as a part of EQIP in sec. 2361.)
CRS-37
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
member of the Chesapeake Bay Executive
Council. [Sec. 2301]
No comparable provisions in current law.
Authorizes grants to states through a new
Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive
Program in Sec. 1240R to encourage landowners
to provide public access for “wildlife-dependent
recreation.” Identifies the contents of applications
and priorities for awards, and provides
discretionary funding of $20 million per year
through FY2012. [Sec. 2302]
Generally identical to House bill, except placed in sec.
1240S, and does not authorize any appropriations.
[Sec. 2399]
Appropriations of $20 million per year through
FY2012 authorized as a new subsection 1241(a)(9) in
Conservation Funding Provisions. [Sec. 2401(a)(9)]
No comparable provisions in current law.
Authorizes a new Muck Soils Conservation
Program for eligible land (defined by 5
characteristics). Provides $50 million annually in
discretionary funding through FY2012, with
payments to be between $300 and $500 per acre.
[Sec. 2303]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provisions in current law.
Authorizes a new subsection at the end of Sec.
1244 requiring the Secretary to develop and
implement a single simplified application
process for conservation programs within 1 year
of enactment. [Sec. 2405(b)]
Generally similar to provisions in House bill. [Sec.
2405(a)]
No general provision in current law. (Note:
Current law limits CRP payments to $50,000
per year in sec. 1234(f), sets payment limits for
each of 3 tiers in the CSP in sec. 1238C(d)-(e),
and limits EQIP payments to $450,000 for all
contracts in any 6-year period in sec. 1240G.
Authorizes new payment limits in sec. 1246,
limiting annual payments to $60,000 under any
single conservation program, and $125,000 under
all conservation programs; excludes the WRP,
FRPP, and GRP. Defines how payments should be
attributed to individuals. Deletes existing
conservation payment limit language. [Sec. 2409]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provisions in current law.
Requires the Secretary to submit an annual report
on specialty crop producer participation in
conservation programs in a new sec. 1252,
including how to improve specialty crop producer
No comparable provision.
CRS-38
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
access to these programs. Initial report to be
submitted within 180 days of enactment. [Sec.
2406]
No comparable provisions in current law.
Authorizes a new program to promote marketbased approaches to conservation in sec. 1245. 4
findings about the need and the benefits of
facilitating markets are listed. The Secretary may
conduct relevant research, enter into contracts, and
award grants to foster markets. Establishes an
Environmental Services Standards Board made up
of senior federal officials to facilitate the
development of credit markets and disseminate
performance standards to federal agencies.
Defines “baseline” and “performance standard.”
Authorizes $50 million in discretionary funding,
with appropriated amounts to remain available
until spent. [Sec. 2407]
Authorizes new provisions for conservation
programs in environmental service markets in a
new sec. 1245. The Secretary is to use a collaborative
process with specified interests to develop a
framework for participating in environmental services
markets. Components of the framework are specified
(includes designing accounting features and
developing a verification process), with priority given
to participation in carbon markets. Three
implementation reports, with contents specified, are
required within specified times from the date of
enactment. Discretionary funding of “such sums as
are necessary” are authorized. [Sec. 2406]
No comparable provisions in current law.
Adds income from affiliated packing and handling
operations to definition of farm income when
calculating adjusted gross income limitation to
determine eligibility for conservation programs.
[Sec. 2501]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provisions in current law.
Allows the Secretary to encourage development of
voluntary sustainable practices guidelines for
specialty crops. [Sec. 2502]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provisions in current law.
Requires the Secretary to develop information on
the importance of productive farmland and
designate at least 1 farmland information center
to distribute this and related information. Federal
matching funds are at least $400,000, and shall not
exceed 0.5% of the amount provided to implement
the FRPP. [Sec. 2503]
No comparable provision.
CRS-39
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
No comparable provisions in current law.
Requires the Secretary to contract with a peanut
producer for a 4 year crop rotation and provides
up to $10 million annually from FY2008 through
FY2012. [Sec. 2504]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision in current law. (Note:
See the Conservation Security Program, above,
in existing programs.)
See section 2103, the Conservation Security
Program (above), for some related changes; for
example, the House bill defines “priority resources
of concern.” However, the House bill does not
create a new program.
Authorizes a new Comprehensive Stewardship
Incentives Program in secs. 1240T to coordinate
administration of a new Conservation Stewardship
Program created in secs. 1240U-1240X (which
combines the Conservation Security Program (CSP)
and EQIP (both discussed above) and address defined
resources of concern, meet regulatory requirements,
encourage conservation, and promote conservation and
production as compatible goals. Implementing
regulations to be issued within 180 days of enactment.
[Sec. 2341]
No comparable provisions in current law.
No comparable provision.
Authorizes a Discovery Watershed Demonstration
Program in a new sec. 1240Q to reduce the loss of
nutrients into surface waters in 30 small watersheds in
the Upper Mississippi River basin. Authorizes such
discretionary funds as are necessary. [Sec. 2397]
No comparable provisions in current law.
No comparable provision.
Authorizes an Emergency Landscape Restoration
Program in a new sec. 1240R to replaces the
Emergency Conservation and the Emergency
Watershed Protection Programs. [Sec. 2398]
No comparable provisions in current law.
No comparable provision.
Authorizes access to conservation provisions in a
new sec. 2401(g) to provide 10% of the funds (or acres
in the cases of WRP and CRP) to beginning producers
who derive at least $15,000 from selling agricultural
products, or socially-disadvantaged producers.
Includes higher levels for technical assistance where
possible, and encourages cooperative agreements.
[Sec. 2403]
CRS-40
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
No comparable provisions in current law.
No comparable provision.
Adds a sec. 1244(d) requiring the Secretary, at the
request of a landowner, to help get “safe harbor”
assurances if land enrolled in a conservation program
benefits a specie under the Endangered Species Act.
[Sec. 2405(b)]
No comparable provisions in current law.
No comparable provision.
Adds a sec. 1244(e) requiring the Secretary to assist
producers who apply for programs indirectly
through certain organizations if it will increase
participation and program benefits; payment limits
apply to each producer, not the organization. [Sec.
2405(b)]
No comparable provisions in current law.
No comparable provision.
Authorizes a Agriculture Conservation Experienced
Service Program in sec. 307 of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. The
Secretary can enter into agreements with organizations
to provide technical assistance using qualified
individuals who are 55 or older. [Sec. 2602]
No comparable provisions in current law.
No comparable provision.
New provisions titled technical assistance amend the
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of
1935 to update definitions. Reauthorizes the Soil and
Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977through
2028, and requires a national appraisal of soil, water
and related resources and a national conservation
program to be issued every 10 years. [Sec. 2603]
No comparable provisions in current law.
No comparable provision.
The “sodsaver” makes cultivated land that was
vegetated with native sod and has never been used to
produce a crop ineligible for crop insurance and
disaster assistance; requires the Secretary to report
within 180days of enactment, and annually thereafter
on changes in cropland acreage, by county, from
calendar year 1995. [Sec. 2608]
No comparable provisions in current law.
No comparable provision.
Requires that no producers in Texas lose program
CRS-41
PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)
(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)
HOUSE BILL
(H.R. 2419)
SENATE AMENDMENT
(H.R. 2419)
benefits as a result of participating in a study of the
Ogallala Aquifer’s recharge potential. [Sec. 2609]
No comparable provisions in current law.
No comparable provision.
Amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136o(d)) to
require the State Department to pay EPA employee
expenses incurred while conducting certain
international activities. [Sec. 2610]
No comparable provisions in current law.
No comparable provision.
Amends sec. 202(a) of the Colorado River Salinity
Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1592(a)) to create a basin
states program implementing specified salinity
control activities. [Sec. 2611]
No comparable provisions in current law.
No comparable provision.
Amends sec. 33 of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136w-8) to allow
the EPA Administrator to waive a portion of the
pesticide registration service fee under certain
circumstances. [Sec. 2612]